Search

Objective: To evaluate radiographic knee osteoarthritis (OA) progression, development of knee OA, patient-reported outcomes and knee muscle strength at 10-year follow-up after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) or exercise therapy for degenerative meniscal tears., Methods: Randomised controlled trial including 140 participants, with a degenerative meniscal tear and no or minimal radiographic OA changes. Participants were randomised to either APM or 12 weeks of exercise therapy (1:1 ratio). The primary outcome was knee OA progression assessed by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) atlas sum score (sum of medial and lateral compartment joint space narrowing and osteophyte score). Secondary outcomes included incidence of radiographic and symptomatic knee OA, patient-reported pain and knee function and isokinetic knee muscle strength., Results: The adjusted mean difference in change in the OARSI sum score was 0.39 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.97), with more progression in the APM group. The incidence of radiographic knee OA was 23% in the APM group and 20% in the exercise group (adjusted risk difference 3% (95% CI -13% to 19%)). No clinically relevant differences were found in patient-reported outcomes or isokinetic knee muscle strength., Conclusion: No differences in radiographic knee OA progression and comparable rates of knee OA development were observed 10 years following APM and exercise therapy for degenerative meniscal tears. Both treatments were associated with improved patient-reported pain and knee function., Trial Registration Number: NCT01002794., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BB reports grants from the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, during the conduct of this study. EMR is the copyright holder of Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and several other patient-reported outcome measures, and co-founder of the Good Life with Osteoarthritis in Denmark (GLA:D), a not-for-profit initiative to implement clinical guidelines in primary care hosted by University of Southern Denmark. ME reports consultancy for Grünenthal Sweden AB. MAR is the co-founder of the AktivA (www.aktivmedartrose.no) in Norway, a not-for-profit initiative to implement evidence-based guidelines hosted by the Oslo University Hospital. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ Group.)

Objectives: To examine whether physical therapy (PT) is cost-effective compared with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in patients with a non-obstructive meniscal tear, we performed a full trial-based economic evaluation from a societal perspective. In a secondary analysis-this paper-we examined whether PT is non-inferior to APM., Methods: We recruited patients aged 45-70 years with a non-obstructive meniscal tear in nine Dutch hospitals. Resource use was measured using web-based questionnaires. Measures of effectiveness included knee function using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Follow-up was 24 months. Uncertainty was assessed using bootstrapping techniques. The non-inferiority margins for societal costs, the IKDC and QALYs, were €670, 8 points and 0.057 points, respectively., Results: We randomly assigned 321 patients to PT (n=162) or APM (n=159). PT was associated with significantly lower costs after 24 months compared with APM (-€1803; 95% CI -€3008 to -€838). The probability of PT being cost-effective compared with APM was 1.00 at a willingness to pay of €0/unit of effect for the IKDC (knee function) and QALYs (quality of life) and decreased with increasing values of willingness to pay. The probability that PT is non-inferior to APM was 0.97 for all non-inferiority margins for the IKDC and 0.89 for QALYs., Conclusions: The probability of PT being cost-effective compared with APM was relatively high at reasonable values of willingness to pay for the IKDC and QALYs. Also, PT had a relatively high probability of being non-inferior to APM for both outcomes. This warrants further deimplementation of APM in patients with non-obstructive meniscal tears., Trial Registration Numbers: NCT01850719 and NTR3908., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: all authors had financial support from The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (in Dutch: ZonMw) for the submitted work; the Achmea Healthcare Foundation (in Dutch Stichting Achmea Gezonheidszorg fonds) and the foundation of medical research at the OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Objectives: To examine the ability of surgeons to predict the outcome of treatment for meniscal tears by arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) and exercise therapy in middle-aged patients., Design and Setting: Electronic survey. Orthopaedic surgeon survey participants were presented 20 patient profiles. These profiles were derived from a randomised clinical trial comparing APM with exercise therapy in middle-aged patients with symptomatic non-obstructive meniscal tears. From each treatment group (APM and exercise therapy), we selected five patients with the best (responders) and five patients with the worst (non-responders) knee function after treatment. 1111 orthopaedic surgeons and residents in the Netherlands and Australia were invited to participate in the survey., Interventions: For each of the 20 patient profiles, surgeons (unaware of treatment allocation) had to choose between APM and exercise therapy as preferred treatment and subsequently had to estimate the expected change in knee function for both treatments on a 5-point Likert Scale. Finally, surgeons were asked which patient characteristics affected their treatment choice., Main Outcomes: The primary outcome was the surgeons' percentage correct predictions. We also compared this percentage between experienced knee surgeons and other orthopaedic surgeons, and between treatment responders and non-responders., Results: We received 194 (17%) complete responses for all 20 patient profiles, resulting in 3880 predictions. Overall, 50.0% (95% CI 39.6% to 60.4%) of the predictions were correct, which equals the proportion expected by chance. Experienced knee surgeons were not better in predicting outcome than other orthopaedic surgeons (50.4% vs 49.5%, respectively; p=0.29). The percentage correct predictions was lower for patient profiles of non-responders (34%; 95% CI 21.3% to 46.6%) compared with responders (66.0%; 95% CI 57.0% to 75.0%; p=0.01).In general, bucket handle tears, knee locking and failed non-operative treatment directed the surgeons' choice towards APM, while higher level of osteoarthritis, degenerative aetiology and the absence of locking complaints directed the surgeons' choice towards exercise therapy., Conclusions: Surgeons' criteria for deciding that surgery was indicated did not pass statistical examination. This was true regardless of a surgeon's experience. These results suggest that non-surgical management is appropriate as first-line therapy in middle-aged patients with symptomatic non-obstructive meniscal tears., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03462134., Competing Interests: Competing interests: VG, NW, JN, and RP received financial support from The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (in Dutch: ZonMw) for the submitted work; the Achmea Healthcare Foundation (in Dutch Stichting Achmea Gezonheidszorg fonds), and the foundation of medical research at the OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: STS is one of the founders of Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D). GLA:D is a non-profit initiative hosted at University of Southern Denmark.

This statement aimed at summarising and appraising the available evidence for risk factors, diagnostic tools and non-surgical treatments for patients with meniscal tears. We systematically searched electronic databases using a pragmatic search strategy approach. Included studies were synthesised quantitatively or qualitatively, as appropriate. Strength of evidence was determined according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation framework. Low-quality evidence suggested that overweight (degenerative tears, k=3), male sex (k=4), contact and pivoting sports (k=2), and frequent occupational kneeling/squatting (k=3) were risk factors for meniscal tears. There was low to moderate quality evidence for low to high positive and negative predictive values, depending on the underlying prevalence of meniscal tears for four common diagnostic tests (k=15, n=2474). Seven trials investigated exercise versus surgery (k=2) or the effect of surgery in addition to exercise (k=5) for degenerative meniscal tears. There was moderate level of evidence for exercise improving self-reported pain (Effect Size (ES)-0.51, 95% CI -1.16 to 0.13) and function (ES -0.06, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.11) to the same extent as surgery, and improving muscle strength to a greater extent than surgery (ES -0.45, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.29). High-quality evidence showed no clinically relevant effect of surgery in addition to exercise on pain (ES 0.18, 95% 0.05 to 0.32) and function (ES, 0.13 95% CI -0.03 to 0.28) for patients with degenerative meniscal tears. No randomised trials comparing non-surgical treatments with surgery in patients younger than 40 years of age or patients with traumatic meniscal tears were identified. Diagnosis of meniscal tears is challenging as all clinical diagnostic tests have high risk of misclassification. Exercise therapy should be recommended as the treatment of choice for middle-aged and older patients with degenerative meniscal lesions. Evidence on the best treatment for young patients and patients with traumatic meniscal tears is lacking., Competing Interests: Competing interests: STS is one of the founders of Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D). GLA:D is a non-profit initiative hosted at University of Southern Denmark. The remaining authors have no conflict of interests to declare., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)